If what Woodward says is true, the officers in question ought to be shit-canned. At the very least, they ought to be relieved of their commands (as Truman did with MacArthur). There is no excuse for them to be sabotaging the execution of policies already decided upon by the legitimate civilian authorities.

The existence of disagreement between the civilian & military spheres it not necessarily harmful. What’s concerning is the bolded section – that even after the President had given his orders, certain officers continued to hinder the execution of those orders.

Part of the problem, methinks, is the absence of a healthy way for military officers to register disagreement with civilian authorities. Hence, they express their disagreement in unhealthy ways. If we had a culture among officers where it was understood that a military officer, when confronted orders which he fundamentally disagreed, was obligated to either resign in protest or request relief from his duties, military officers would have a way of expressing disagreement with civilian authorities without undermining the chain of command. Also, it would remove such officers from positions wherein they could undermine the President’s policies in the manner that Woodward describes.

Advertisements

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

This entry was posted on 20090406 at 2043 and is filed under Links. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.